• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
you gave me nothing, ...what you you think is hard to understand in the constitution, give me a clause .

So, according to you, the second amendment is not in the Constitution. I just want this clear.
 
are you out there, i asked you a question, and you responded to me with a question...........are you drinking?

No, but English doesn't seem to be your first language. I gave you the second amendment me as an example of something to clear to all in the Constitution. I'm not sure why you don't consider this an answer.

But I could find people disagreeing on the following as well:

1. The commerce clause
2. The contracts clause
3. The due process clause (amend 5 and 14)
4. The privileges or immunities clause
5. The equal protection of the laws clause
6. The general welfare clause
7. The necessary and proper clause
8. The supremacy clause
9. The takings and tax clauses
10. The enumeration of rights clause (amend 9)

So, exactly how do you think you haven't been answered?
 
No, but English doesn't seem to be your first language. I gave you the second amendment me as an example of something to clear to all in the Constitution. I'm not sure why you don't consider this an answer.

But I could find people disagreeing on the following as well:

1. The commerce clause
2. The contracts clause
3. The due process clause (amend 5 and 14)
4. The privileges or immunities clause
5. The equal protection of the laws clause
6. The general welfare clause
7. The necessary and proper clause
8. The supremacy clause
9. The takings and tax clauses
10. The enumeration of rights clause (amend 9)

So, exactly how do you think you haven't been answered?

you gave me nothing, you respond to my question...with A QUESTION!
 
you gave me nothing, you respond to my question...with A QUESTION!

No, I added a question on to the example.

Now, try to follow:

1) the example is the second amendment. It's short.

2) the evidence is despite being short, it has been debated since day one. And still is. And I can give you at least two separate readings that contradict each other, each having wide and long lasting support.

3) after saying that, I asked how you can say it is clear and not debatable.

Damn, it shouldn't be this hard.
 
No, I added a question on to the example.

Now, try to follow:

1) the example is the second amendment. It's short.

2) the evidence is despite being short, it has been debated since day one. And still is. And I can give you at least two separate readings that contradict each other, each having wide and long lasting support.

3) after saying that, I asked how you can say it is clear and not debatable.

Damn, it shouldn't be this hard.

your ridiculous, i asked you a question and then you start a tear on the 2nd, for some reason, and purpose to state i said something about it...which i said nothing...by asking me a question......your attempts to confuse fail.
 
your ridiculous, i asked you a question and then you start a tear on the 2nd, for some reason, and purpose to state i said something about it...which i said nothing...by asking me a question......your attempts to confuse fail.

Seriously, you're messed up here. You asked for an example and I gave you one. You're not making any sense at all. If anyone can't point out the confusion point, let me know.
 
Seriously, you're messed up here. You asked for an example and I gave you one. You're not making any sense at all. If anyone can't point out the confusion point, let me know.


no...i asked you a question, which you responded with a question, stating to the affect i said something of the 2nd....which i said nothing, but to asserted i did...in an attempt to confuse...however it failed.
 
no...i asked you a question, which you responded with a question, stating to the affect i said something of the 2nd....which i said nothing, but to asserted i did...in an attempt to confuse...however it failed.

No, I did nothing of the kind. You asked where or how the Constitution was confusing. I answered that the second amendment would be one example. Through rhetorical questions is noted how debated they were. By example i was answering your question. How you can see this is shocking to me.
 
No, I did nothing of the kind. You asked where or how the Constitution was confusing. I answered that the second amendment would be one example. Through rhetorical questions is noted how debated they were. By example i was answering your question. How you can see this is shocking to me.

wrong, you inserted a question to me, of the 2nd,purposing i said something about it, which i had said nothing, so you were asking a question of me for no reason since i had said nothing of it........in an attempt to confuse and deflect, which is a tactic of some people...but it failed.
 
wrong, you inserted a question to me, of the 2nd,purposing i said something about it, which i had said nothing, so you were asking a question of me for no reason since i had said nothing of it........in an attempt to confuse and deflect, which is a tactic of some people...but it failed.

No, I didn't. I never said you said anything about the second amendment. When you said you didn't get an answer, after I answered with the second amendment, I asked if you were saying it wasn't in the Constitution. This was related to you not thinking I answered you. Surely you can follow this?
 
are you not able to understand anything, if one state polluted another state that would be unlawful, and that would bring in the U.S. court system........as listed in the constitution "controversies between states"
I understand plenty. I understand the USA picked up the tab to clean up Lake Erie, not the industries that dumped their filth into it and made a huge profit from doing that instead of treating said pollution. I understand there is still a long list of toxic dumps all over the country that are slowly being cleaned up with taxpayer money because your ignorant and outmoded system doesn't work in the 20th (nor 21st) century. And I understand exactly what I posted - that no state would allow another state to let it's businesses send crap down the river or into the air to impact it's own people. Hence, the EPA.


Your short-sighted fanaticism has no answers to this kind of problem because the founders didn't have any more of a clue about it than you do. I know what the pre-EPA world looked like and I don't want to go back.
 
people and business do not make commerce laws, ....... the problem under the articles, becuase states were at war with each other....business was not at war, the commerce was turned over to the federal government, for commerce AMONG the states, not inside them
So Farmer Sam Inc and his 1000 sq miles of farmland can sell any amount of corn they want to Canada and no one can say otherwise? Oil Inc can ship billions of gallons of toxic crude across our highways to Mexico in any manor they choose and no one has the authority to stop it???


It's you who has no clue ...
 
oh tell me where the constitution is difficult.
The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment seems to be difficult since there are at least two different, basic interpretations of it. Obviously, it's not worded as straightforward as you're trying to make it seem or there would be NO disagreements about it's interpretation.


You want another example? The disagreement between Hamilton and Madison on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 - and disagreement that is now well over 200 years old and - apparently - still counting.

You continue to pretend that you have all the answers and that it's all one nice, neat little package but that's a bunch of crap and you know it or you wouldn't be in here quoting King Madison of America and His Royal Dictates all the time.
 
Last edited:
I understand plenty. I understand the USA picked up the tab to clean up Lake Erie, not the industries that dumped their filth into it and made a huge profit from doing that instead of treating said pollution. I understand there is still a long list of toxic dumps all over the country that are slowly being cleaned up with taxpayer money because your ignorant and outmoded system doesn't work in the 20th (nor 21st) century. And I understand exactly what I posted - that no state would allow another state to let it's businesses send crap down the river or into the air to impact it's own people. Hence, the EPA.


Your short-sighted fanaticism has no answers to this kind of problem because the founders didn't have any more of a clue about it than you do. I know what the pre-EPA world looked like and I don't want to go back.
The tendency is to romanticize the past and forget that things are actually better today in many ways. It's never perfect. And the balance is a struggle. But overall, many things are better due to efforts like the EPA.
 
But if you were on a road trip and stopped to get gas and use the restroom, you might not be able to. Then you stop again and again, but finally are forced to use the bathroom on the side of the highway. That was the situation at one time.

Or you're traveling and want to stop for the night at a motel, but they won't take you. You drive on, and can't find a place to spend the night, so you end up sleeping in your car. That was the way it was.

And imagine the hurt, how that would make you feel. It's not obvious you're gay. You don't have the same issue as a black or indian person.

If a business is a private membership club, they have the right to restrict. And if you're an association (Stossel should know this), you have a right to choose the members of that association. But if you are a private business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, "public" means all the people. You are not allowed to reject those you consider second class.
 
A dress code is different from a person. There's a difference between a sign that says "shoes and shirt required" and "no Jews allowed." It is not a constitutional right to go shirtless. It IS a constitutional right that we are all equal under the law. We are the public. If a business caters to the public, that includes everyone. It does not include every item of clothing.

If you want to exclude Jews, you can form a private club. That's legal. You can also form an association and require the members to be restricted to some interest or whatever the association is geared to.
 
A dress code is different from a person. There's a difference between a sign that says "shoes and shirt required" and "no Jews allowed." It is not a constitutional right to go shirtless. It IS a constitutional right that we are all equal under the law. We are the public. If a business caters to the public, that includes everyone. It does not include every item of clothing.

If you want to exclude Jews, you can form a private club. That's legal. You can also form an association and require the members to be restricted to some interest or whatever the association is geared to.

I agree with you whole heartedly if you were addressing any public/government organization, but private business is another matter. What happens when we allow government to control the choices of businesses, you are on your way to fascism where the government will allow you to have your business but will dictate how you will run it. If unchecked the business owner will end up controlling nothing more than the name on the shingle outside his/her establishment. Look at how the government has encroached on businesses like bowling alleys and bars by forcing bans on cigarette smoking. Cigarettes are a legal product in this country. Look what the government has done to the food industry. They are now dictating how much fat, salt, sugar etc permitted in the food that they serve.

The business person who discriminates will lose business. The business person who permits smoking will lose a good portion of their non smoking clientele. The restaurant owner that does not add choices to their menu for the health conscious will lose business. But for the government to force such changes is a violation of property rights.
 
I agree with you whole heartedly if you were addressing any public/government organization, but private business is another matter. What happens when we allow government to control the choices of businesses, you are on your way to fascism where the government will allow you to have your business but will dictate how you will run it. If unchecked the business owner will end up controlling nothing more than the name on the shingle outside his/her establishment. Look at how the government has encroached on businesses like bowling alleys and bars by forcing bans on cigarette smoking. Cigarettes are a legal product in this country. Look what the government has done to the food industry. They are now dictating how much fat, salt, sugar etc permitted in the food that they serve.

The business person who discriminates will lose business. The business person who permits smoking will lose a good portion of their non smoking clientele. The restaurant owner that does not add choices to their menu for the health conscious will lose business. But for the government to force such changes is a violation of property rights.

it's not actually true that the market will weed out discrimination. The past informs us quite well that it doesn't. If it did, there would have never been the need that led to the laws to begin with.
 
it's not actually true that the market will weed out discrimination. The past informs us quite well that it doesn't. If it did, there would have never been the need that led to the laws to begin with.

Greetings Boo, are you aware it was a Progressive Democrat president that started a segregation agenda? His name was Woodrow Wilson.

The Wilson administration made it illegal to marry inter-racially in DC.

For the first time, Washington Offices were segregated.

PBS - American Experience: Woodrow Wilson | Wilson- A Portrait

In 1913, Wilson segregated the civil service.

Racial segregation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why you saw two different drinking fountains in government buildings. One for whites and one for blacks.
 
Greetings Boo, are you aware it was a Progressive Democrat president that started a segregation agenda? His name was Woodrow Wilson.

The Wilson administration made it illegal to marry inter-racially in DC.

For the first time, Washington Offices were segregated.

PBS - American Experience: Woodrow Wilson | Wilson- A Portrait

In 1913, Wilson segregated the civil service.

Racial segregation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why you saw two different drinking fountains in government buildings. One for whites and one for blacks.

It doesn't make a bit of difference to me who started it. What matters in this discussion is that there is a history that led to the laws we now have.
 
It doesn't make a bit of difference to me who started it. What matters in this discussion is that there is a history that led to the laws we now have.

I wish more people would think the history mattered for if they did, they would realize how a president found others in public service to allow him to push a racist agenda at the highest level of government. And that maybe if they did look back they wouldn't be so damn willing to accept big government never questioning their agenda and always thinking big government knows best like controlling your health care, your child's education etc.
 
I wish more people would think the history mattered for if they did, they would realize how a president found others in public service to allow him to push a racist agenda at the highest level of government. And that maybe if they did look back they wouldn't be so damn willing to accept big government never questioning their agenda and always thinking big government knows best like controlling your health care, your child's education etc.

Every agenda should be questioned, but not all are created equal. prejudice and discrimination didn't need a presidential agenda. it existed long before and long after Wilson. Frankly, it exists today. There are still places that won't serve you based on race. They're not suffering financially either. We got to those laws not because of a president, but because our prejudices led us to discriminate on a large scale.
 
Back
Top Bottom